Greens Scrambling to Demonize the Climate Impacts of Natural Gas

World Energy Consumption
World Energy Consumption. By Con-structBP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In the face of the embarrassing failure of European renewables to reduce CO2 emissions, greens appear to be ramping up attacks on the alleged climate impacts of natural gas.

America’s liquefied natural gas boom may be on a collision course with climate change

By Matt EganCNN Business
Updated 2301 GMT (0701 HKT) July 1, 2019

New York (CNN Business)

America’s liquefied natural gas boom has a climate change problem, according to a report released on Monday.

The US energy industry is scrambling to build dozens of expensive export terminals that can be used to ship cheap natural gas to China and other fast-growing economies that want to move away from coal.

While those investments make sense today, they will likely be derailed in the longer run by a combination of plunging renewable energy costs and rising climate change concerns, according to the Global Energy Monitor, a network of researchers tracking fossil fuel projects.

Those dual forces will make many LNG projects “unprofitable in the long term,” putting much of the $1.3 trillion of investments in the sector at risk, the report said.

The problem is that the LNG boom will create harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions. Both coal and natural gas produce CO2 emissions, though natural gas creates far less than coal.

Rather than fossil fuels like gas, Nace argued that the long-term growth opportunity will be solar, wind and other alternatives. 

“This century will be owned economically by whoever manages to dominate renewables,” he said.

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/01/business/lng-boom-environment-climate-change/index.html

I think it is kind of sweet of greens to put so much effort into warning fossil fuel investors they’re about to lose all their money.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
83 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 2, 2019 10:08 am

What else would you expect a greenie to say? Next their going to say that they have a way to direct the winds so the turbines will produce electricity 24/7. How about they are close to developing solar panels that will work under moon and star light as effectively as under sunlight.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Sid A
July 2, 2019 10:40 am

Why not just capture that “back radiation” that provides twice as much energy to the surface than the sun? Oh, because things must actually be based on reality when it comes to applied sciences.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 2, 2019 11:34 am

Robert W Turner: [ Why not just capture that “back radiation” ]

Brilliant!

We’re told that ‘Greenhouse Gas’ back radiation keeps the Earth 33C (60F) warmer than it would be without it, surely enough energy to power humanity.

Now, if we could just learn how to detect it first …

H.R.
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 2, 2019 11:50 am

Oooo… I like that back radiation capture idea, Robert. Anyone who figures out that one has a license to print money.

On second thought, don’t even bother to figure it out. Just set up a sham company and go with it knowing it’s a scam. I’m sure there will be no shortage of greenie investors in such a scheme. “We’re gonna have our big breakthrough real soon now.”

#TakeTheMoneyAndRun

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  H.R.
July 2, 2019 8:26 pm

Actually, I’ve seen a white paper on just this subject. Someone proposed developing a photovoltaic (PV) cell with a bandgap tuned to the radiation emitted during cloud formation. I wish I could lay my hands on it, because whoever it was had measured the infrared flux, and found it to be reasonably high in a narrow band. Very high efficiencies are possible under these conditions. In fact, beamed power using optical wavelength lasers and tuned bandgap PV cells is very, very efficient.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Sid A
July 2, 2019 2:34 pm

I am fully sick and tired of this oft-repeated fallacy:

“… methane — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide”.

First, we all know there is absolutely no empirical evidence that CO2 actually effects atmospheric temperature. Similarly, no direct evidence that methane effects atmospheric temperature.

But more to the point, methane is about 2 ppm in the atmosphere while CO2 is about 400 ppm, so methane is at least 200 times less effective than CO2 in any supposed capture/re-radiation of LWIR. Methane oxidizes readily and is quickly cycled out of the atmosphere and CO2 is removed by plant growth. And, of course, the absorption spectra of both CO2 and methane are overpowered by far more abundant H2O

The alarmists are following the “reasoning” of the religious purists in the debate over “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”.

Forrest Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Amen

John F Kellmer
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 2, 2019 5:42 pm

Awesome answer. I just really enjoy it when actual facts are so simply stated and truth made so plain. The alarmists are unfortunately intellectually deaf.

Bill Ley
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 3, 2019 5:59 am

I agree with you

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  GeologyJim
July 3, 2019 10:25 am

GeologyJim
I believe the alarmist claim is that methane has 80 times the heat trapping potential when first released into the atmosphere; the average, over the period of time it oxidizes into CO2, is about 30. So, with a concentration ratio of 1:200 (methane to CO2) the potential heat trapping effect is 1:7. But, those claims ignore the fact that water vapor, CO2, and methane are all working in concert. The cumulative heat trapping effect is what should be considered, not the effects of individual components. Both CO2 and CH4 are negligible compared to H2O.

Tom Halla
July 2, 2019 10:13 am

Shuure! So they are finally going to fix the intermittency problem?

jtom
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 2, 2019 10:44 am

I suspect A O C is planning to introduce legislation requiring wind to blow at constsnt speeds at specific locations, and the sun not to set in areas with solar panels.

GREG in Houston
Reply to  jtom
July 2, 2019 11:40 am

It’s really quite simple. You put hundreds of square miles of solar panels above the arctic circle in the northern hemisphere’s summer, and then ship them south below the antarctic circle in the southern hemisphere’s summer. That would work, right?

Max Porath
Reply to  jtom
July 2, 2019 12:19 pm

Jtom. Your comment immediately brought to mind this little ditty and makes me wonder if this is what AOC would have in mind.

It’s true, it’s true, the crown has made it clear
The climate must be perfect all the year
A law was made a distant moon ago here
July and August cannot be too hot
And there’s a legal limit to the snow here in Camelot
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot
By order, summer lingers through September in Camelot
Camelot: Camelot
I know it sounds a bit bizarre
But in Camelot: Camelot
That’s how conditions are
The rain may never fall till after sundown
By eight, the morning fog must disappear
In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot
For happily ever after in than here in Camelot
Camelot: Camelot
I know it gives a person pause
But in Camelot: Camelot
Those are the legal laws
The snow may never slush upon the hillside
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear
In short, there’s simply not a more congenial spot
For happily ever after in than here in Camelot

On additional reflection, I think the above might be the inspiration upon which the whole, green, movement is based. /Sarc

Cheers
Max

beng135
July 2, 2019 10:20 am

Proof that the eco-regressives are simply against modern civilization, and people in general. Funny how all the expensive renewable push hasn’t reduced Euro-carbon, but changing the type of fossil-fuel (which actually saves money) has reduced carbon significantly in the US.

Joe B
Reply to  beng135
July 2, 2019 4:18 pm

Not just the “climate alarmists” ramping up the assault on natgas … attacks greatly accelerating on the “health” front as well.

Just released results of 1,500 “reports” showing frac’ing BAD for all that is held dear.
This horeshit is being cyber bleated all over the internet.

Intensity of all this reeks of desperation.

July 2, 2019 10:27 am

Those’ plunging renewable energy costs’ are causing some very steep rises in the cost of electricity in CAGWland.

Bart Tali
July 2, 2019 10:31 am

Natural gas production is not contributing to methane emissions in the US, at least. Production has increased and emissions have gone down.

http://westernwire.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/EPA-methane-data-natural-gas-production-768×451.png

Charles Higley
Reply to  Bart Tali
July 2, 2019 8:25 pm

“The problem is that the LNG boom will create harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions.”

Natural gas producers have a vested interest in NOT leaking their product. Duh. This does not compute with the greenies who think gas producers are bozos who stand around watching things leak.

Also methane gas has a 5 year half life in the atmosphere, which is rather short, and has little effect on climate even if it was a “greenhouse gas”.

As no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm the planet, worrying about methane is a nonstarter and only means lost product for them to sell.

Reply to  Charles Higley
July 3, 2019 6:12 am

Hi Charles,

To be clear, I am not worried about methane emissions from any source. Catastrophic global warming is an unscientific farce – a false narrative.

However, the last time I reviewed the subject, which was long ago, LNG tankers had to vent their (full) LNG tanks to atmosphere. Some of the boiling methane is used for ship power, but the rest must be vented because the cryogenic tanks cannot hold pressure.

As you can imagine, smoking on board is frowned upon – kind of like the explosives plant I worked in as a kid.

Defense de fumer, tabarnak! 🙂

Randy Wester
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 3, 2019 5:47 pm

According to Wikipedia, all the boiloff is reliquified using cheaper diesel engine power or used for propulsion. Older tankers are dual fuel, some steam/gas turbine. Smoking would be unwise.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Randy Wester
July 3, 2019 8:13 pm

On a mmbtu basis LNG has been cheaper than diesel for 20 years.

The last couple years, new LNG tankers have gas turbines that make electricity and electric drive motors to propel the ship.

I don’t think they even have any diesel on board.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Greg Freemyer
July 4, 2019 5:54 am

https://www.wartsila.com/twentyfour7/in-detail/boil-off-gas-handling-onboard-lng-fuelled-ships

Yes they have diesel. Sometimes the LNG tanks are empty fir backhaul. Most importantly, they do not vent gas or flare except in an emergency. Flares are a safety measure, vented gas is dangerous.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 3, 2019 8:08 pm

25 year old ships might flare the boil-off, but there aren’t many of those left on the seas. No ship today would release the boil-off without at least attempting to flare it.

Also, 25-year old ships had boil-off rates of 0.2% of the load per day. Ships hitting the water the last couple years are 0.07% per day.

Rocketscientist
July 2, 2019 10:32 am

The market will place its invisible hands on the Ouija Board and select whichever has the most economic benefit.
Any political pressure will be artificially influencing selection, and there are numerous examples of misapplied artificial influence with undesired (bad) consequences.

Pat Frank
July 2, 2019 10:37 am

plunging renewable energy costs

Fat f-ing chance.

Don
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 10, 2019 7:15 am

From the CNN article linked above, talking about “plunging renewable energy costs”:

“Renewable energy — including not just solar and wind but also water, biomass and geothermal steam — narrowly overtook coal by climbing to 257.53 gigawatts of installed capacity, FERC said.”

Note that it says “installed capacity”, and nothing about how much energy actually gets produced. I’d be surprised if solar and wind ever produce more than 30% of their installed capacity.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Don
July 10, 2019 7:46 am

Propaganda is easy to spot. Enron-like price manipulation by utilities suddenly shutting down power plants during high load are also still being spotted in the wild.

The Left doesn’t understand that money and currency has been the energy trading system that has always evolved through recorded history, and they want to implement a new one that *they* control. Their big problem with rooftop solar is both cost and the benefit go to the greedy capitalist under the roof.

So they make up straw man fairy tales about giant batteries. Which, if they could exist, would be super handy, for storing up nuclear power overnight to power the world’s coffee makers. Or running container ships.

Robert W Turner
July 2, 2019 10:38 am

Neat little chart showing actual energy consumed by source alongside total installed renewables capacity. Actually, the report says total installed solar+wind capacity is just over 1 TW, but the chart is showing about double that. They’ve gone from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum to Beyond Propaganda.

Tom Gelsthorpe
July 2, 2019 10:46 am

Greens are against everything, and therefore worse than useless. They’ve become medieval, avenging Angels of Death denouncing every advance since the Stone Age.

“Sin! Sin! Sin!” Leaves no room for further advance or even compromise.

steve case
July 2, 2019 10:46 am

The problem is that the LNG boom will create harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions

What they NEVER say is how much that translates into temperature rise. The reason for that, is that it isn’t very much. Business as usual it’s maybe 0.04 K by 2100. That’s so little as to be essentially nothing.

Policy makers need to know how much methane will actually raise temperature. They aren’t being told. Something is wrong.

Go on your favorite search engine and as, “How much is methane going to run up temperatures by 2100? You won’t find an answer. Try it (-:

william Johnston
Reply to  steve case
July 2, 2019 11:52 am

“They aren’t being told”. But isn’t it their job to ask???

steve case
Reply to  william Johnston
July 2, 2019 2:16 pm

Yeah, how ’bout that?

Kit
July 2, 2019 10:49 am

Night will be a thing of the past, Dark Absorbing Diodes (DAD) are coming, renewable power after dark, and street lighting for FREE.

Couple DADs with DEDs (Dark Emitting Diodes)and have power 24/7.

/s

mr bliss
Reply to  Kit
July 2, 2019 5:42 pm

I’ve just gone long on DADs and DEDs, invested all I have – I just wish I knew what ‘/s’ meant

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  mr bliss
July 2, 2019 8:31 pm

LMFAO (Schwarz)!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kit
July 3, 2019 10:31 am

Kit
Those diodes have a fatal flaw in that their output is limited by the speed of dark. 🙂 Anyone who is qualified for Densa knows what the speed of dark is.

Editor
July 2, 2019 10:50 am

Over the last week or two, I have flown over some wind farms, mostly offshore, and the impression I got was that about 10% of turbines were out of action. Unfortunately I didn’t record any details. But are there stats out there on how many turbines have broken down after how many years? I suspect that the “plunging renewable energy costs” are a mirage.

ColMosby
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 2, 2019 1:16 pm

A recent survey indicated that the life span of the large turbines is only half what was promised, which more or less indicates costs twice as much as promised.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 2, 2019 3:10 pm

Dumb question, obvious necessity, have the turbine people consulted with the extensive experience with salt water and air from the petroleum industry? Upwind from the Corpus Christi wind farm is one of the windiest and saltiest bodies of water (Laguna Madre) in the US. Currently the area is in a very wet period, but lots of salt, even plankton gets picked up and goes inland, altitudes I’m not sure about.

Coffeeguyzz
Reply to  HD Hoese
July 2, 2019 4:27 pm

The operational challenges – and expenses – of offshore wind is one of the dirty, under reported ‘secrets’ of this industry.
Ferrying crews out and back daily – weather permitting – salt, wave action, bird and lightening strikes, blade edge degradation, on and on.

The mere idea of east coast US offshore wind being pursued when the planet’s largest gas resources are nearby is completely deranged.

Cliff Hilton
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 2, 2019 7:06 pm

@Mike Jonas

I left Copenhagen on May 20th, from their airport and observed a very similar situation. The ones along the beach at Copenhagen were greater than 10% that were posing. I didn’t see any near St. Petersburg, Russia. Just nukes along the shore.

John MacDonald
July 2, 2019 10:52 am

What this guy is really saying is, “Invest in the projects that I am pushing, so I can make more money.”
As always, follow the money.

He speaks of “dozens” of LNG project, but in actuality only a few of them are needed and will get built. It is obvious that his research is shallow and he doesn’t really understand the LNG market.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  John MacDonald
July 3, 2019 8:34 pm

If a $4B LNG train is a project, Cheniere alone has 6 in operation and 3 under construction.

About 20 are now operating or under construction in the US.

A LNG train has conceptual similarities to an oil refinery.

John MacDonald
July 2, 2019 10:55 am

And once again not mention of the real economics that still include production tax credits and investment tax credits to make solar and wind economic for the builder, but not the taxpayer.

James Snook
July 2, 2019 10:55 am

Mind boggling stupidity. Wind and solar will never keep the lights on. Something has to fill the gap and natural gas is ideal- low capital and running costs, and flexible.

mkelly
Reply to  James Snook
July 2, 2019 11:42 am

True, but that s stopping cities here in Michigan from telling their citizens that the cities will be going 100% renewable at a date certain in the future. Petoskey, Michigan is the latest to declare they are willing to have the good folks freeze on a -20 F January winter night when a high pressure settles in with no wind at night.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  mkelly
July 2, 2019 12:38 pm

They’ll just depend on buying very high priced electricity on the Spot Market. That will then send electric bills skyrocketing. The rich will have their electricity. The fixed income seniors will have to decide whether to freeze or go hungry, because they won’t be able to afford both.

Coffeeguyzz
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 2, 2019 4:32 pm

… which is precisely what South Australia has been experiencing these past few years with spot juice prices often hitting $14,000/Mwh … that’s fourteen thousand … Aussie bucks, though, so not too terribly expensive.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Coffeeguyzz
July 2, 2019 8:06 pm

Ah, how quickly we forget Enron and start blaming machines and technologies.

Mark
July 2, 2019 11:04 am

They will not be content until the rest of us fall on our sword. What would they say to a loss of reliable fossil fuel power? Make only renewables feed the grid. Lets forage for seeds (organic only) and lock up cars, access to any other transportation, phones, internet etc. so that the future they espouse and the effect it has on the quality of life for all that will suffer as a result will be plain for all.

I wonder what a “Day without energy” would do to the vocal screaming climate terrorists? One wonders why anyone listens to them at all. If they really mean it, tell them to go to the basement and flip off the main.

Curious George
July 2, 2019 11:09 am

Wind and solar proponents know very well what is unprofitable in the long run. Why don’t we follow their advice? 🙂

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Curious George
July 2, 2019 12:15 pm

Wind and solar are quite profitable if you have the politicians in your pocket. Politicians who over voter objections then pass renewable mandates and “subsidies” and tax breaks in order to screw-over the middle class for their fleecing.
Bloomberg, the Rockefellers, Tom Steyer, and the many other GreenSlime billionaires and their “foundations” support this junk “research” stuff to keep the cash flowing into their renewable energy portfolios. Cash that got harvested from the middle class under the ruse of Climate Change. It is a sophisticated operation, many tentacles with much behind-the-scenes coordination of propaganda campaigns like this crap from Mr Nace and his fellow climate pornographers.

Henry Galt
July 2, 2019 11:14 am

I show all my children every single thing these creatures are using to dismantle their and all our future.

Every single monster – the stupid and the purposeful. Every single mechanism – the simple and the hidden. Every single claim where they are attempting to leave us shivering in the dark some when down the road.

My kids will know why we ended up poor and brutally deprived of any chance of advancement. IF it should happen. They are being taught to NOT forgive these insane murderers no matter their groveling excuses when their prophesies and policies are exposed by time or truth as the anti-human junk they most certainly are.

I may not live long enough to see it. I fully expect to become an excess winter death before that.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2017to2018provisionaland2016to2017final

“”The number of excess winter deaths in 2017 to 2018 was the highest recorded since winter 1975 to 1976″”

Coffeeguyzz
Reply to  Henry Galt
July 2, 2019 4:39 pm

These negative impacts are already happening.

Newport, RI, evacuated several people this past winter cold snap when gas for heating was unavailable.
Likewise, Minnesota urged residents to bundle up while indoors as there was an acute gas shortage.

ALL this dangerous drama is a direct result of anti hydrocarbon hysteria.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Coffeeguyzz
July 2, 2019 8:25 pm

Seriously? It’s not perhaps the gas utility’s fault? Or pooly insulated buildings barely up to code?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Henry Galt
July 2, 2019 11:31 pm

Daddy, what did we use for light before candles?
We used electricity in the old days, son….

Sara
July 2, 2019 11:18 am

I wonder if Matt Egan of CNN likes being cold in the winter time… or having no hot water for his precious shower… or having to cook on a stove powered by – – umm, well, maybe his stomach gases?

July 2, 2019 11:18 am

The question is, “How much methane really leaks, and is this enough to offset the benefits of liquid natural gas?”

https://eidclimate.org/report-finds-u-s-natural-gas-methane-emissions-little-climate-change-impact/

Cam_S
July 2, 2019 11:21 am
Wharfplank
July 2, 2019 11:30 am

To the Greens,,,May you have cold long still winter nights.

Greg in Houston
July 2, 2019 11:44 am
Reply to  Greg in Houston
July 2, 2019 2:05 pm

The high per-molecule absorption cross section of CH4 makes no difference at all in our real atmosphere.

Unfortunately, this numerical reality is overlooked by most people.

Thomas Homer
July 2, 2019 11:48 am

“harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions”

Oh, now there’s a ‘Harmful’ scale for ‘Greenhouse Gas’ emissions?

I’ve misplaced my matrix for ‘Greenhouse Gas’ definitions. CO2, water vapor, methane, others? I recall that one is ‘potent’, another is ‘important’, but which one is ‘blasphemous’, and which one is ‘contemptuous’?

Joel Snider
July 2, 2019 12:07 pm

Well, ‘demonize’ is what progressives do – it’s that whole hate-bait thing – pretty much all day every day.

Joel O'Bryan
July 2, 2019 12:07 pm

“Rather than fossil fuels like gas, Nace argued that the long-term growth opportunity will be solar, wind and other alternatives. “

Like maybe nuclear power? The failure of the Green idiots to acknowledge nuclear power as the only viable long-term solution gives away the game they are playing.
From the story: “Ted Nace, founder and director of the Global Energy Monitor, said in an interview.”
“Tellingly, billionaire Michael Bloomberg has expanded his own fight against climate change to include natural gas. Last month, Bloomberg launched Beyond Carbon, a $500 million investment aimed at not only accelerating coal plant retirements but “working to prevent new construction of gas plants.””

So what is this “Global Energy Monitor” organization? Is it an independent source of quality information or just another (of many) climate propaganda shops masquerading as independent, reliable research?

Here is their “About” statement:

“Global Energy Monitor was launched under the name CoalSwarm in early 2008 and later that year was accepted as a project of Earth Island Institute, an incubator for innovative projects in ecology and social justice. Affiliation with Earth Island Institute gave access to logistical resources and 501(c)3 tax status, allowing the project to receive tax-deductible donations as well as foundation support. In 2018 CoalSwarm became an independent 501 (c3) organization, and in 2019 changed its name to Global Energy Monitor.”

And here are their listed financial supporters:
Carlin Family Fund
ClimateWorks Foundation
Energy Foundation
European Climate Foundation
KR Foundation
Mertz Gilmore Foundation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Sierra Club Foundation

Wallace Global Fund.

Basically they have 3 of Biggest Names in the GreenSlime Syndicate as financial backers.

And “social justice” is one of their two innovative projects. Between that and who is paying their salaries, that should inform anyone with a brain what they are “about”. And it “about” has zero to do with honest messaging on energy.
Make no mistake, Mr Nace and his Climate Porn Production outfit are just a Climate propaganda outlet for the GreenSlime. Nace and his team are doing little song and dance jigs for GreenSlime pay-outs in exchange for idiotic “reports” that then fake news CNN dutifully reports on orders too. They think just because they can write garbage and have CNN report it means it has any validity.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2019 10:42 am

Joel O’Bryan
What can we do about the suicidal zealots who apparently believe in the meme that “It is necessary to destroy a village to save it.” Clearly, they are not amenable to rational discussion or even understanding facts. It is akin to the inmates being in charge when the Media and half the electorate accepts the unsupportable claims.

enarhem
July 2, 2019 12:22 pm

Funding for the Global Energy Monitor, which seems to have provided the impetus for some of the Canadian media outlets this morning to report that Natural Gas is the “New Coal”, is as follows…

FUNDING
In addition to private donations, Global Energy Monitor has received support from the following funders:

Carlin Family Fund
ClimateWorks Foundation
Energy Foundation
European Climate Foundation
KR Foundation
Mertz Gilmore Foundation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rockefeller Family Fund
Sierra Club Foundation
Wallace Global Fund

https://globalenergymonitor.org/about/funding/

Just follow the money….

ColMosby
July 2, 2019 1:17 pm

Any expert who avoids mentioning molten salt nuclear reactors isn’t qualified to give any public opinions.

Bruce Cobb
July 2, 2019 1:41 pm

“This century will be owned economically by whoever manages to dominate renewables,” he said.

Hilarious. Proving, once again, that the Koolade-quaffing, misguided Greenbeany Climate Numpties live in a dream world full of myths, fantasies, magic, and wishful-thinking.

Leo Kenji
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 3, 2019 5:18 am

whoever owns renewable energy production will make a $billions… cause the CO2 tax is coming, no matter what you think you are willing to do to avoid it, you cannot keeping destroying other people’s properties and believing you can get away with it for free. Already now renewable energy is massively profitable business, in fact TEXAS is the biggest wind power producer in North America, they have so much wind generated power, they have to export it, because they have too much for local consumption.

SO much for these communists down in Texas .. huh ?

That said, … imagine that, BP as in British Petroleum is investing $Bs in wind power mill to be installed in the North Sea, where they took down their failing oil rigs and replaced, them with Wind Power mills …
they must be totally stupid, isn’t it?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Leo Kenji
July 3, 2019 6:12 am

Wind farms don’t exist to harvest wind energy.
Wind farms exist to harvest tax credits and subsidies.

If those tax credits/subsidies were withdrawn, every wind turbine would be shutdown the next day.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 3, 2019 5:29 pm

Almost all the cost of solar, wind, and even nuclear is up front. So cutting off any subsidies has no effect on existing fuel cost is zero for wind so the only ongoing costs are maintenance and land rent. Not a fan of subsidies for things that should pay for themselves.

Jordan
July 2, 2019 1:52 pm

““harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions”

Except methane reacts with oxygen. Methane cannot exist for long periods in an atmosphere comprising 21% oxygen. The atmospheric residence time of methane is reckoned to be less than 10 years, so emissions of methane have no prospect of ever adding up to much. Methane is a tiny part of the atmosphere and that’s the way it’s going to stay.

Claims of high “global warming potential” add up to the thick end of naught. Methane is the big lie.

Leo Kenji
Reply to  Jordan
July 3, 2019 3:13 am

Methane decays into the very same amount of CO2 as if other types of fossil fuels were burned for the same amount of energy , it simply has a short time peak of radiative forcing that will increase temperature faster initially, but then asymptotically reach the same level of long term CO2 concentration, hence global warming.

So, if methane is used only as fuel, yeah, it simply has a spike of warming impact, because of the higher GHG effect, but no difference on the longer terms (whose length depends on the amount methane released by unit of time). It can take even a 100 years to reach the same level of CO2, if the methane was to be released rapidly in large amount.

The issue with methane is that there are 500Gt of it stored in the frozen tundra that is melting … that would not be useful energetically but would still be released. It will probably take 100 year to get it all released …

Now go (SNIPPED)

(Some of your language needs some cleaning up, which is why I snipped the offending part, you have another comment, one far worse in the mod bin, which will have to be moderated) SUNMOD

Richard M
Reply to  Leo Kenji
July 3, 2019 7:40 am

Looks like we have a new troll reading from the scriptures in his Clientology bible. Always hilarious to see these cultists repeating the same long refuted nonsense.

Editor
Reply to  Leo Kenji
July 3, 2019 8:08 am

Leo,

Your Tundra melting claims are silly since around 95% of the Tundra of the last 15,000 years have long melted away. It used to be in Southern Nebraska and into Northern California. It was all over most of Europe at its peak.

Currently its southern boundary around 60degrees N, but 18,000 years ago it was down to around 40 degrees N in America and Europe, that is a lot of land!

You like many warmists fail to think it through, since most of the Permafrost have long melted away with only a small amount left.

Despite the massive reduction of Permafrost from the planet, no catastrophic events transpired.

Reply to  Leo Kenji
July 3, 2019 11:44 am

“Leo Kenji” is another fake name, fake email, fake IP address. He’s been binned. Probably our good friend in Oregon again dealing with his personal demons.

Don
Reply to  Anthony Watts
July 10, 2019 7:30 am

He also doesn’t understand that methane (the vast majority of “natural gas”) produces the least amount of CO2 of any hydrocarbon fuel – methane, when burned, produces water (H2O) and CO2 at a 2:1 ratio, other hydrocarbon fuels converge to a 1:1 ratio as the fuel molecules get longer.

Gary
July 2, 2019 3:49 pm

““harmful methane emissions — a greenhouse gas that is roughly 30 times more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions”
Typically with propaganda this is a half truth. You need to understand where this 20 or 30 times came from. What Hansen did was compare a 1 ppm increase in CO2 to methane ie for CO2 375 to 376 or a 0.3% increase to a 1ppm increase in methane from 1.6 to 2.6 ppm or a 63% increase. The result was that the increase in the forcing for methane is 20 times that for CO2. And what is the increased forcing; next to zero so 20 times zero is a pretty small number. However methane at the same concentration as CO2 is actually less powerful than CO2 as the emissivity/absorbance is lower for methane at the same concentration. Essentially the effect of methane on forcings is negligible.

J Mac
July 2, 2019 4:59 pm

It’s the same tosh the communists have pumped for 100 years, just recycled.
The dinosaur communists asserted that socialism was a transitional state on the path to true communism.
Today’s eco-communists assert that natural gas is only a transitional state on the path to true eco-communism.

Green on the outside. Still red on the inside….

Leo Kenji
Reply to  J Mac
July 3, 2019 5:10 am

so then, to not be communist, you need to die starving because the physics of green house gases will kill most of he crops …
wow, smart thinking … where did you get your brain?
to think that CO2 is a gas, not a political party, all you had to do was to simply use non carbon based energy sources and you’d have been on your way to a better place, but no .. cause preferred to follow Trump’s lead, (SNIPPED) sounds familiar .. oh Yeah, the former head of the KGB, the intelligence services of the USSR, they were NOT communists, right?

Gee, you are dumb ad confused ..

(Do not continue to write up sexually explicit language!) SUNMOD

Reply to  Leo Kenji
July 3, 2019 11:45 am

“Leo Kenji” is another fake name, fake email, fake IP address. He’s been binned. Probably our good friend in Oregon again dealing with his personal demons.

Earl Hackett
July 3, 2019 7:20 am

Although the greens are a bunch of morons, they are right about people loosing money in the LNG boom. Just like the internet boom of 2000, there will be a few winners (Amazon, Google, and a couple more) , but the rest will be wiped out. I stay away from those investments as you have a much greater chance of loosing your shirt than getting rich.

%d bloggers like this: